We must rethink all our basic assumptions on a global scale.
ONO Goro / Emeritus Professor, Saitama University
June 28, 2016
The G7 countries seem still intent on leading the world, as they have done in the past. It is true that G7 comprised major powers whose actions were regarded as "given" conditions for the world as a whole, and they bore concomitant responsibilities to the world. However, the raging waves of globalization came to jeopardize their position as major powers, and the G7 countries, for their part, have had to put their own national interests above their global responsibilities. They originally perceived "globalization" as Westernization, tantamount to bringing the world into conformity with Western values and standards. Contrary to their expectations, they discovered that in reality it meant "diversification". They continue to uphold the flag of "shared values such as democracy and market economy", but there are signs of disarray in their ranks.
Why? Could it be that there had been no such thing as "shared values" to begin with? Could it further be that we have avoided coming to grips with such fundamental skepticism?
For example, with respect to Japan, there have been a number of instances where doubts were raised about the validity of the assumption of "shared values". After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, it became necessary to rethink the Japan-U.S. alliance and the security architecture for East Asia. Environmental degradation, in which Japan is embroiled, poses the challenge of how we can ensure the survival of humankind. As we find ourselves in the process of transition from high growth to zero growth and mature economy, we are beset with problems such as striking the right balance between "benefits" and "burdens" under the "market economy" and between "freedoms/ rights" and "responsibilities/obligations" under "democracy".
As we take another look at the multitude of problems at home and abroad, they all look "déjà vu". Those of us who have tried for decades in the pas to raise the alarm and suggest solutions cannot but feel that it is already too late. None of the ideas touted as reform plans appear to be much more than quick-fix, palliative measures, limited in vision and unlikely to lead to long-term solutions from a macroscopic perspective.
As someone coming from a nation vanquished in war, I venture to say that the "postwar order" is in a way nothing more than a concoction by the victors. The underlying notion that "victors are always in the right" tempts some countries to try the nuclear option for assurance that "they will never be vanquished". It also provides the breeding ground for terrorists who "remain unseen to the enemy".
It has been considered a taboo to question these "givens". What we need to do is to break the taboo and rethink all these assumptions with a view to establishing an ultra long-term and macroscopic framework for contemplating the future and then go on to work out the specific plans of action. We should not emulate politicians and academics who tend to start with their current preoccupations and try to build up the specifics.
What lies at the core of the debate in which human survival is at stake is none other than the two truths: firstly, "humankind is nothing more than an entity (element) allowed to live in the ecosystem (universal set) of the earth", and secondly, "the raison d'être of humankind is spiritual rather than material". However, even these truths are no longer accepted by today’s democracy, which is like mob rule, and the market, which is like a casino. The concepts of "democracy" and "market economy", though they may sound axiomatic, are neither absolute nor universal. We should realize anew that they are full of shortcomings, but have been adopted for want of better alternatives.
America, whom Japan has emulated since its defeat in the war, has had its share of conflicts, internal contradictions and risks. In recent years, it has been struggling to meet the challenges from the emerging countries. Amid all this, it has consistently sought to seek new frontiers. It has managed to maintain its position of influence in the world by dint of its strength as a super power with the world's key currency.
It is not as easy for other countries to retain their influence. That is why the advanced countries in Europe, with nuclear weapon states in their midst, have come subtly to distance themselves from the United States. Britain's exit from the European Union can be seen as a move in that context. If such is the case, what is the implication of the fact that Donald Trump, who is openly skeptical about the Japan-U.S. alliance, has become a presumptive U.S. presidential candidate? We should assess the situation dispassionately and bear in mind that, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election in November, there are many Americans who feel sympathetic to Donald Trump.
As for Japan, we need to grapple seriously with a host of impending tasks. To name a few:
•In-depth debate on possible amendments to the Japanese constitution embracing the spectrum of opinions;
•Pros and cons of Japan’s nuclear weapon development;
•Rethinking the Japan-U.S. security arrangements and the scope of "self-defense";
•Measures for fiscal reconstruction comparable to Greece, including default; and
•Resource-saving and energy saving with accompanying pains.
In any event, people in their twenties and thirties should be the prime movers of far-reaching reform for the ultra long term. Those in their forties and older, with their "conservative (ossified) mindsets", should refrain from speaking, and should limit themselves to helping produce the environment for free and active debates among the younger generations.
Goro Ono is Emeritus Professor at Saitama University.
Why? Could it be that there had been no such thing as "shared values" to begin with? Could it further be that we have avoided coming to grips with such fundamental skepticism?
For example, with respect to Japan, there have been a number of instances where doubts were raised about the validity of the assumption of "shared values". After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, it became necessary to rethink the Japan-U.S. alliance and the security architecture for East Asia. Environmental degradation, in which Japan is embroiled, poses the challenge of how we can ensure the survival of humankind. As we find ourselves in the process of transition from high growth to zero growth and mature economy, we are beset with problems such as striking the right balance between "benefits" and "burdens" under the "market economy" and between "freedoms/ rights" and "responsibilities/obligations" under "democracy".
As we take another look at the multitude of problems at home and abroad, they all look "déjà vu". Those of us who have tried for decades in the pas to raise the alarm and suggest solutions cannot but feel that it is already too late. None of the ideas touted as reform plans appear to be much more than quick-fix, palliative measures, limited in vision and unlikely to lead to long-term solutions from a macroscopic perspective.
As someone coming from a nation vanquished in war, I venture to say that the "postwar order" is in a way nothing more than a concoction by the victors. The underlying notion that "victors are always in the right" tempts some countries to try the nuclear option for assurance that "they will never be vanquished". It also provides the breeding ground for terrorists who "remain unseen to the enemy".
It has been considered a taboo to question these "givens". What we need to do is to break the taboo and rethink all these assumptions with a view to establishing an ultra long-term and macroscopic framework for contemplating the future and then go on to work out the specific plans of action. We should not emulate politicians and academics who tend to start with their current preoccupations and try to build up the specifics.
What lies at the core of the debate in which human survival is at stake is none other than the two truths: firstly, "humankind is nothing more than an entity (element) allowed to live in the ecosystem (universal set) of the earth", and secondly, "the raison d'être of humankind is spiritual rather than material". However, even these truths are no longer accepted by today’s democracy, which is like mob rule, and the market, which is like a casino. The concepts of "democracy" and "market economy", though they may sound axiomatic, are neither absolute nor universal. We should realize anew that they are full of shortcomings, but have been adopted for want of better alternatives.
America, whom Japan has emulated since its defeat in the war, has had its share of conflicts, internal contradictions and risks. In recent years, it has been struggling to meet the challenges from the emerging countries. Amid all this, it has consistently sought to seek new frontiers. It has managed to maintain its position of influence in the world by dint of its strength as a super power with the world's key currency.
It is not as easy for other countries to retain their influence. That is why the advanced countries in Europe, with nuclear weapon states in their midst, have come subtly to distance themselves from the United States. Britain's exit from the European Union can be seen as a move in that context. If such is the case, what is the implication of the fact that Donald Trump, who is openly skeptical about the Japan-U.S. alliance, has become a presumptive U.S. presidential candidate? We should assess the situation dispassionately and bear in mind that, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election in November, there are many Americans who feel sympathetic to Donald Trump.
As for Japan, we need to grapple seriously with a host of impending tasks. To name a few:
•In-depth debate on possible amendments to the Japanese constitution embracing the spectrum of opinions;
•Pros and cons of Japan’s nuclear weapon development;
•Rethinking the Japan-U.S. security arrangements and the scope of "self-defense";
•Measures for fiscal reconstruction comparable to Greece, including default; and
•Resource-saving and energy saving with accompanying pains.
In any event, people in their twenties and thirties should be the prime movers of far-reaching reform for the ultra long term. Those in their forties and older, with their "conservative (ossified) mindsets", should refrain from speaking, and should limit themselves to helping produce the environment for free and active debates among the younger generations.
Goro Ono is Emeritus Professor at Saitama University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
世界規模で前提をすべて見直せ
小野 五郎 / 埼玉大学名誉教授
2016年 6月 28日
G7は、彼らがこれまでしてきたように、これからも世界を主導し続けたいようだ。なるほど、かつてのG7は、その行動が全世界の与件となる「大国」だったし、世界に対する責務も負っていた。だが、グローバリゼーションの荒波はその「大国」の地位を脅かし、G7自身も世界的責務より国益を重視するようになった。彼らが欧米化=一元化の延長上と理解していたグローバリゼーションが、案に相違して「多様化」だったのだ。それでも「民主主義・市場経済など価値観の共有」との旗印を共に掲げてはいるもののその足並みにも乱れが見られる。
なぜか？元々「共有価値観」など無かった。にもかかわらず、そんな根源的な懐疑を避けてきたのではないのか？
例えば、日本についても、「共有価値観」の前提に疑問が投げかけられた局面がいくつも生じて来ている。ソ連邦が崩壊し冷戦が終結した後には、日米同盟および東アジアの安全保障体制を見直すことを必要となっている。日本も渦中にある地球環境の破壊は、人類の存続を如何に確保するかとの課題を投げかけている。また、高度成長からゼロ成長・成熟期への移行に伴い、「市場経済」の下における「受益」と「負担」、「民主主義」の下における「自由・権利」と「責任・義務」と言った問題が生じている。
このように内外に山積する問題を改めて見直すと、すべてがデジャブであり、ここ数十年来似たような警告ないし提言をしてきた我々からすれば、今やすべて手後れで、付け焼刃に提唱される改革案はどれも視野が狭く長期・マクロ的な改善には繋がらないのではないかと思える。
ところで、敗戦国人の立場から言えば、「戦後秩序」とは、一面において戦勝国が勝手に作ったものにすぎない。だからこそ、その「勝てば官軍」思想に乗り、「負けないための兵器」である核に手を出す国々とか「敵に姿を見せない」テロが叢生するのだ。
今為すべきは、こうしたタブー視されてきた一切の「与件」を見直し、改めて超長期・マクロの「基軸」を打ち建て、そこから各論を詰めていくことであり、とかく政治家や学者がこだわる現状からスタートし、そこから各論を積み上げていくことではない。
人類存亡を賭けた議論の原点にあるのは「人類は地球生態系（全集合）の中で生活させてもらっている一存在（要素）にすぎない」、「人類の存在意義は、物的なものよりも精神的なものにこそある」という二つの真理を措いてない。ところが、そんな真理さえも、今の衆愚ないしカジノと化した民主体制とか市場からは受入れられなくなった。公理のごとく叫ばれる「民主主義」「市場経済」にしても、絶対・普遍ではなく欠陥だらけだが、より良い代案が無いがゆえに採用されているにすぎないことを今こそ再認識すべきだ。
一方、日本が敗戦以来モデルとするアメリカは、時に紛争・内部矛盾・リスク等を招き、最近では後発国の台頭に苦闘しながらも、常に新しいフロンティアを目指してきた。それでも、超大国・基軸通貨国アメリカであればこそ何とか一定の地位を維持できるのだ。
その点、他の国々ではそうはいかないから、仲間内に核を有する欧州先進国ではアメリカと微妙に距離を取り始めたのだろう。英国のEU離脱もその流れの一つと考えられる。となれば、日本は、日米同盟に懐疑的なトランプ氏が次期アメリカ大統領候補になった事実を冷静に受け止め、本選の結果はどうあろうとも相当数のアメリカ人が彼と同じ思いだということを念頭に置く必要がある。
日本自身については、「各立場ごとの憲法の在り方」「核開発の是非」「日米安保体制見直しなどを含む自衛の範囲」「デフォルトを含めギリシャ並みの財政再建策」「痛みを伴う省資源省エネルギー化」といった課題に真摯に取り組んで行くことが求められる。
いずれにしろ、超長期を睨んだ改革の中心に来るべきは20～30代であり、過去にこだわる「保守的な（頭が固い）」40歳以上は発言を控え、年長世代は若い世代が自由闊達に討議できるような環境を整えるくらいが望ましい。
(筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授）
なぜか？元々「共有価値観」など無かった。にもかかわらず、そんな根源的な懐疑を避けてきたのではないのか？
例えば、日本についても、「共有価値観」の前提に疑問が投げかけられた局面がいくつも生じて来ている。ソ連邦が崩壊し冷戦が終結した後には、日米同盟および東アジアの安全保障体制を見直すことを必要となっている。日本も渦中にある地球環境の破壊は、人類の存続を如何に確保するかとの課題を投げかけている。また、高度成長からゼロ成長・成熟期への移行に伴い、「市場経済」の下における「受益」と「負担」、「民主主義」の下における「自由・権利」と「責任・義務」と言った問題が生じている。
このように内外に山積する問題を改めて見直すと、すべてがデジャブであり、ここ数十年来似たような警告ないし提言をしてきた我々からすれば、今やすべて手後れで、付け焼刃に提唱される改革案はどれも視野が狭く長期・マクロ的な改善には繋がらないのではないかと思える。
ところで、敗戦国人の立場から言えば、「戦後秩序」とは、一面において戦勝国が勝手に作ったものにすぎない。だからこそ、その「勝てば官軍」思想に乗り、「負けないための兵器」である核に手を出す国々とか「敵に姿を見せない」テロが叢生するのだ。
今為すべきは、こうしたタブー視されてきた一切の「与件」を見直し、改めて超長期・マクロの「基軸」を打ち建て、そこから各論を詰めていくことであり、とかく政治家や学者がこだわる現状からスタートし、そこから各論を積み上げていくことではない。
人類存亡を賭けた議論の原点にあるのは「人類は地球生態系（全集合）の中で生活させてもらっている一存在（要素）にすぎない」、「人類の存在意義は、物的なものよりも精神的なものにこそある」という二つの真理を措いてない。ところが、そんな真理さえも、今の衆愚ないしカジノと化した民主体制とか市場からは受入れられなくなった。公理のごとく叫ばれる「民主主義」「市場経済」にしても、絶対・普遍ではなく欠陥だらけだが、より良い代案が無いがゆえに採用されているにすぎないことを今こそ再認識すべきだ。
一方、日本が敗戦以来モデルとするアメリカは、時に紛争・内部矛盾・リスク等を招き、最近では後発国の台頭に苦闘しながらも、常に新しいフロンティアを目指してきた。それでも、超大国・基軸通貨国アメリカであればこそ何とか一定の地位を維持できるのだ。
その点、他の国々ではそうはいかないから、仲間内に核を有する欧州先進国ではアメリカと微妙に距離を取り始めたのだろう。英国のEU離脱もその流れの一つと考えられる。となれば、日本は、日米同盟に懐疑的なトランプ氏が次期アメリカ大統領候補になった事実を冷静に受け止め、本選の結果はどうあろうとも相当数のアメリカ人が彼と同じ思いだということを念頭に置く必要がある。
日本自身については、「各立場ごとの憲法の在り方」「核開発の是非」「日米安保体制見直しなどを含む自衛の範囲」「デフォルトを含めギリシャ並みの財政再建策」「痛みを伴う省資源省エネルギー化」といった課題に真摯に取り組んで行くことが求められる。
いずれにしろ、超長期を睨んだ改革の中心に来るべきは20～30代であり、過去にこだわる「保守的な（頭が固い）」40歳以上は発言を控え、年長世代は若い世代が自由闊達に討議できるような環境を整えるくらいが望ましい。
(筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟